Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    6

    Where to mount the Atomic Atlas?

    I just scored a pair of Atomic Atlas' and need to know where to mount them. Those who I have spoken to say 1 cm back, any ideas?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    40
    I mounted mine on the line and don't have any regrets. I couldn't find out enough info at the time I had them mounted in Dec. Discussed with the shop tech and aggreed to mount on the line. Interested to hear about different mounting locations.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    6
    Thanks a ton. I'll let you know how they ski 1 cm back, its not much but i ski the heavier sierra snow and think that it may be better.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    LaLa Land
    Posts
    3,172
    Lets get some reviews of these things posted. Looks like a sweet design.
    He who has the most fun wins!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    40
    I will get review posted, I just wanted to get a couple more days on them.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    bellingham, wa
    Posts
    264
    is it the 182 or 192? i would like reviews on 182, looking for almost an everyday killer ski

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    354
    seconded for a review on the 192...these and the 4frnt renegades are at the top of the list for next year.
    60% of the time, it works every time.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by skibum.roberts View Post
    is it the 182 or 192? i would like reviews on 182, looking for almost an everyday killer ski
    Robby-

    The Atlas has a mark on it that Atomic recommends as the mounting point. I would go with what Atomic recommends.

    skibum.roberts-

    What are you looking for in an everyday ski? The Atlas is more of a Big Mountain/Freeride ski.

    I demo-ed both sizes of the Atlas and loved the 192 in the powder and light crud. At 5'10", 170 lbs, the 182 was a little short for my taste, but I like a longer ski for the pow (I like the floatation of a longer, fatter ski). And because the Atlas has rocker in the tip, the effective edge is much shorter than 182 cm. I'd say the 182 skis more like a 176.

    If you like Atomic like I do, and you are looking for an all-around performer (frontside, backcountry, freeride) try the Coax or Blog.

    Blog has rocker in the tip and tail so it does tend to chatter at high speeds and on the groomers. Plus, rocker at both ends gives this ski a rather short effective edge. But this ski will punch through crud like nobodys business.

    Coax has traditional camber the full length of the ski and, in my opinion, is the perfect all-around, everyday ski. This ski will perform in pow, crud, and groomers with ease.

    If you're like me and avoid the groomers at all costs, the Atlas 192 or the Coax 183 are the way to go. If you like rocker in the tip, Atlas 192. If you are not sold on rocker technology, Coax 183.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    5,206
    I am bumping to find the mount point. 192 cm, team line is 84 cm from tail. Remember seeing the Rahlves post for 85-86, can't locate it now. How about some owners like shatsi or seatown slackey chime in, thanks
    I need to go to Utah.
    Utah?
    Yeah, Utah. It's wedged in between Wyoming and Nevada. You've seen pictures of it, right?

    So after 15 years we finally made it to Utah.....


    Thanks BCSAR and POWMOW Ski Patrol for rescues

    8, 17, 13, 18, 16, 18, 20, 19, 16

    2018/2019 (24/32)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    228
    Mine (192's) are mounted on the line and I will most likely remount +1.5 or +2.0. Are you sure team line is 84 from tail? I think mine measured 83 from team line to tail. IIRC Rahlves skis them at 85. I would definitely recommend mounting Team Line + 1,2 or even 3. I'm ex racer, don't ski backwards for reference.
    Life is all about ass...either you are covering it,
    kicking it, hauling it, kissing it, or trying to get it.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    5,206
    thanks, I remember 85 as well.
    I need to go to Utah.
    Utah?
    Yeah, Utah. It's wedged in between Wyoming and Nevada. You've seen pictures of it, right?

    So after 15 years we finally made it to Utah.....


    Thanks BCSAR and POWMOW Ski Patrol for rescues

    8, 17, 13, 18, 16, 18, 20, 19, 16

    2018/2019 (24/32)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    354
    This is what Daron had said when I emailed him about mount points on the Atlas...it is referring to the 2012 version.

    "I prefer mounting the Atlas 192 from tail to center of boot at 85cm. A little forward from the team line is better. 85 helps make the quick turns in the trees easier. Hope you like it. Get a pair of Tracker16's too"
    60% of the time, it works every time.

  13. #13
    ardthur Guest
    rocker always at both ends gives this ski

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,833
    Hate to bump this thread from soo far back, but I've searched all relevant Atlas threads and I'm not seeing a firm mount recommendation for the 182's. Anybody who's used the Atlas 182 as a touring/slacky ski have a recommendation on the mount point? Looks like +1 or 2 for 192, but I'd love to see some confirmation for the shorter/narrower/tighter version. FWIW, I have experimented with a pair of Access 181's and find -1 to be ideal on those, if that says anything useful about skier-type etc.

    Thanks!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    20sickness
    Posts
    485
    Mine are mounted on the line and I think they're very well balanced. Use them with sollyfit plates

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dawson Creek B.C
    Posts
    191
    I've got both the 182 and 192 and I have both mounted on the line. I wouldn't go any farther forward on the 182 then that as they seem to feel a bit short with the amount of rocker in the tip

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,172
    been mounting atomics for years. always go 1cm forward of line. the sweet spot. make sure you measure carefully as atomics bc line can be off by quite a bit from one ski to another. like as much as 3/8+ of an inch.

    I've done re-mounts on many where the original mount was way off as the shop that mounted just plopped the jig down on the line without measuring.

    rog

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,833
    Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm leaning toward the line now; since I've found my own sweet spot on the Access at -1 (maybe -.7) using demo bindings and substantial experimenting I suspect my neutral stance may lie a hair forward of some. But the impression I've had from people quoting Rahlves is that these skis might punish a guy for tipping back and I'd like to be able to trust them not to hook a tail if I get tossed back in the trees. So between Daron saying +1 and my other Atomics saying -1 it's been a bit of a dilemma. Anybody find these to be overly sensitive to forward/rearward pressure?

    Point_it, I was also wondering the same thing about the remaining running length after all that tip is considered--and no one ever talks about the differences between the two lengths, can you comment on that at all? Ton of difference on paper. I'm assuming that Daron's recommendation of +1 is really only for the 192, and if the 182 is a lot more agile without going forward that might tell the tale.

    Thanks again!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,833
    Quote Originally Posted by icelanticskier View Post
    been mounting atomics for years. always go 1cm forward of line. the sweet spot. make sure you measure carefully as atomics bc line can be off by quite a bit from one ski to another. like as much as 3/8+ of an inch.

    I've done re-mounts on many where the original mount was way off as the shop that mounted just plopped the jig down on the line without measuring.

    rog
    In my vast Atomic experience of three other pairs before these I have to agree, sadly. Had to talk a shop guy into measuring after I noticed the difference on my wife's touring skis and it helped convince me to mount these myself. These marks actually match to the mm though.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,172
    measuring is not hard. sorry you had "it" happen to you. I once took a break from being a shop rat to being a frame to finish home builder for a time, you know, plumb/level/square or die. so I buy an AT setup from a shop and decide to have them mount them cuz the last thing I wanna do is drill a pair o skis after banging nails all day. so I go to pick up the skis (old atomic built black diamond havocs) and the 1st thing I did was set tails to the floor, and yup, you guessed it, a solid 1/4 of an inch off. the tech was out and the store manager saw the rage in my eyes as I walked up to the ski wall and start tearing the plastic off of a new pair in the same length. he asked what was wrong and I told him that the skis were mounted incorrectly and that I was going to mount myself up a new pair right then and there. he pointed the way to the back room where I mounted the fresh pair and walked out

    fuckers. cost me an hour of lift served WROD that morning

    rog

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    where the beer flows like wine
    Posts
    2,383
    ^^^I am dying to know what shop that was.
    Big skis from small companies at Backcountry Freeskier

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,833
    In my case I did the measuring before taking them in to the shop that had the bindings/threw in the mount, so luckily that conversation happened beforehand. But it took a level of convincing that just left me totally unconfident. Hate leaving my stuff in anyone's hands after those.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    N@
    Posts
    354
    After much internal debate, I was going to mount my 182s at -1cm from the line but ended up selling them before mounting or skiing them, so I can't speak to how they ski -1 back. But, it seemed like anything forward of the line for the 182s was just too far forward; all the rocker in the front makes the mount look further back than it really is.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by mtskier View Post
    ^^^I am dying to know what shop that was.
    I bet you are

    not goin there tho.

    rog

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,833
    Sounds like you know the thinking I've been doing. I can see arguments for +1, 0, and -1 on these things and it's a recipe for indecision.

    In my quiver these wind up being my big dump ski anytime I'm using them inbounds (-1). But they'll be touring at least as often, and need to handle everything (0). And I do like agility/hate getting torqued by a tail edge that won't release, even rarely (+1).

    Discounting the last one since this isn't the 192 (and I wouldn't have bought it if I was worried about that much anyway) I'm reminded that my touring boots are 5mm shorter than my regular inbounds boots and screw this, I'm mounting for the touring boots on the line. Feel free to try to convince me otherwise in the meantime. Might take a day or two while I'm marking centerlines and setting up the drillpress anyway.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •